ARC motions 2005/3

Please use the links below to view the content by section:

Primary Agenda

Equal Opportunities

Common Debate: Motions 23 and 24

  1. This Conference calls on the CSP to lobby managers to ensure that equality and diversity policy and procedures are adhered to throughout staff appraisal procedures, to ensure equality of opportunity for development and advancement for all staff. We are concerned that monitoring should take place of current appraisals systems to ensure they are non discriminatory. This is particularly important as lessons may be drawn to inform the implementation of KSF.   BME Network Group

    Appraisals are not mandatory in the NHS and there is no requirement for NHS employers to monitor outcomes. However, under Agenda for Change, annual KSF reviews are mandatory for each NHS employee and monitoring data will be collected to monitor whether this is taking place. As part of the monitoring process data will be collected to enable national bodies and local joint negotiating committees to review whether equality of access to reviews and development is being achieved. The KSF Development Group, on which the CSP has a seat, has expressed concern that awareness of monitoring in the service is low and has sought the support of the NHS Staff Council that mechanisms to support the required monitoring of the KSF and the KSF reviews are established.

    At the time of writing a formal response from the Staff Council has not yet been issued. The CSP is also represented on the NHS Staff Council and its Equalities Sub-Group and will continue to press for effective monitoring to take place. This group will be drawing up further guidance on monitoring which the CSP can share with managers when available. CSP guidance on high quality examples of application for the equality and diversity core dimension of the KSF has also been issued. Future and existing briefings will be reviewed to ensure that equality and diversity aspects are adequately dealt with.

  2. Members are concerned that members with disabilities and long term health conditions are facing potential discrimination through HPC conditions of registration in relation to CPD and also through the introduction of KSF. This Conference calls on the CSP to fully investigate these issues and produce appropriate guidance for members, stewards and managers.

    Concerns have been raised by members about possible discrimination and whilst recognising that work has been undertaken we feel it is worth bringing these to wider audience and formalising policy.  CSP Network Group for Disabled Members

    The HPC published its key decisions after their consultation on CPD in late 2004. Requirements for CPD to be linked to registration were introduced in July 2006 with the first audit for physiotherapists to take place in 2010. The document acknowledges that "how a professional's fitness to practice relates to CPD and specifically whether a lack of CPD can lead to removal from the register" was one of the "most common questions".

    Further guidance published in 2006 clarifies that CPD is not being linked to fitness to practice or competence; this issue is dealt with by other procedures, and it acknowledges that the CPD process should take account of individual circumstances of various groups of registrants (including those who are physically disabled). It now specifically refers to registrants on a career break, including maternity or long term sick leave, being a carer or working outside the UK at the time of audit and includes a process for deferral of an individual's audit while on a career break, if appropriate.

    The HPC states that further information on the deferral process will be published in 2007/8, before the first audit takes place. The document also emphasises that an extensive range of CPD activities and evidence will be accepted. In addition, the guidance specifically refers to disabled health professionals undertaking CPD activities and submitting evidence of CPD. The HPC recognises that, where individuals feel their disability impacts on their CPD or on their profile submission, if audited, individuals should advise the HPC of this and appropriate arrangements will be made, eg. inclusion of disability information on the registrant's profile to justify CPD undertaken, alternative submission formats for profiles, etc.

    This guidance on the CPD standards process including the audit and example physiotherapy profiles is available on the HPC website. The standard template for the profile submission, currently available as a Word document, is available from the HPC website, but as stated above, alternative formats will be considered. The CSP will continue to monitor and advise the HPC on its final profile submission expectations to ensure that submission of profile information does not discriminate against any particular group.

    With regard to producing guidance for members, stewards and managers on these issues, the HPC report announced a communications campaign to educate employers about the HPC CPD process and requirements. The CSP continues to publish its own guidance on how to meet HPC CPD standards and will update this as further information is produced from the HPC. The CSP will continue in its KSF guidance to promote equality of access to learning and development opportunities in line with members' professional and individual needs. The review process against the KSF outline focuses on management responsibility to provide the support staff need to attain the skills and knowledge required to perform their job. Where members have identified additional or different types of support to enable them to develop the skills and knowledge for their job it is the responsibility of the employer to provide this support. The CSP is working with stewards, managers and members to ensure that this responsibility is understood and acted on

  3. This Conference demands that the CSP lobbies the appropriate bodies to act immediately, to address the discrimination regarding the carriage and provision of oxygen on public transport, in accordance with the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.

    With the increase in chronic lung diseases more patients require long term oxygen therapy to aid their activities of daily living. We are aware of the inequity that exists regarding the carriage and provision of oxygen on public transport. For example, mothers with oxygen dependent infants are at times refused access to public buses. This also extends to airlines where there is no standard amount charged for inflight oxygen. We are concerned that the importance of activity and stimulation for patients with chronic lung conditions is compromised by this situation and contravenes the Disability Discrimination Act.   Association Of Chartered Physiotherapists In Respiratory Care

    Council recognises and supports the spirit of this motion which acknowledges the need for those with respiratory problems to have access to oxygen equipment and to facilitate that these patients should be able to move around on public transport wherever possible. The CSP has already sought to bring the plight of those with respiratory conditions to the attention of key decision-makers by running media campaigns on air quality in particular. It has also run press stories on COPD in 2005 and 2006.

    However, Council believes that the best way of exerting pressure on the transport bodies in this matter is through the current influencing bodies such as the British Lung Foundation and the transport unions. To this end the CSP has written to the leading transport unions - specifically the T&G, Amicus, the RMT, ASLEF, BALPA and seek their members' support in encouraging employers to facilitate the carrying of oxygen on public transport. The CSP will also lend support to the British Lung Foundation's work in supporting people travelling with a lung condition.

Back to top

Annual Representative Conference

(these two motions will form part of the led debate which will take place immediately after lunch on Saturday 14 May)

  1. This Conference has noticed that in this and the last few years, ARC time has included question and answer panels, Oxford debate, discussions and other non-debating activities. This Conference believes that the primary function of ARC is to debate motions brought forward by members. Conference calls on the CSP Agenda Committee to ensure protected debating time at next year’s and subsequent Conferences. ARC is the only opportunity for members to bring their concerns to the attention of other CSP members and influence the direction the CSP, through Council, takes over a large range of issues. With the increasing number of other activities taking place during ARC, debating time is reducing. Now is the time to call a halt to this and ensure debating time is protected.   National Group of Regional Stewards

    ARC Agenda Committee, which is elected from representatives at ARC, agree that one of the functions of ARC is to debate motions brought forward by members. However, it also has the responsibility to develop an effective programme that allows members' issues to be debated in an informed and constructive way. The range of activities now included as part of ARC allows this to happen, and have been well received by members. The actual debating time is monitored by Agenda Committee. There has been no significant decrease in the actual time allocated in recent years. The ARC Agenda Committee will report on the amount of debating time at the beginning of each Conference.

    ARC Agenda Committee believes that ARC needs to move forward in ensuring that the Conference remains a vibrant debating forum. This requires that the agenda is both interesting and varied, and the Agenda Committee would call upon all groups to submit motions which will spark debate.

  2. Conference notes that the budget for ARC has not been increased in the last two years. Over these two years costs of accommodation and venues have gone up. Conference also notes that although ARC has been reduced by one day, start time on the first day is early, requiring the same number of nights accommodation. ARC remains a vital mouthpiece for members to debate a broad range of concerns and it is important that a realistic budget is set by Council. Therefore, Conference calls on Council to increase ARC budget in line with increasing costs to keep ARC as the excellent Conference it is known to be. In the last two years there has been no account taken of the rising accommodation and venue costs when setting the budget for ARC. Yet the Agenda Committee is still expected to bring the Conference in on budget.   National Group of Regional Stewards

    The difficult financial position of the Society because of the sharp reduction in recruitment advertising revenues from Frontline in 2005 has meant that there have been pressures on all current budgets. It resulted in ARC 2006 being cancelled by Council in March 2006 as part of the £1 million of financial reductions in 2006 CSP budgets as a direct result of the anticipated big reduction in frontline recruitment advertising revenue in 2006. The ARC Review undertaken in 2004 has also resulted in a reduction of the time of ARC from three days to two days, thereby reducing the costs for the future.

    The draft budget for 2006 ARC had been increased above that for 2005 (as the resolution requested). The full costs of ARC have increased in most years above the budget given for that year. This has been met by savings elsewhere in the CSP budgets. The budget includes the cost of ARC representatives' travel, hotel costs, the venue, meal costs, tea and coffee, technician assistance with visual aids, printed materials, meeting costs of ARC Agenda Committee.

    The reduction to two days was planned to encourage member engagement rather than for the purpose of reducing costs. It aimed to stop members having to take so much time off work. The actual debating time has only decreased slightly. CSP Council has given a firm commitment that ARC 2007 will be held as planned in Oxford in March 2007. The budget for this is included in the 2007 draft budget for approval by Council at its meeting in September 2006.

Back to top

Education

Composite motion

  1. Conference calls upon the CSP to work with managers in developing strategies to promote the provision of protected time and funding for CPD activities. It is apparent that there is discrepancy between Trusts regarding the opportunities afforded to staff for preparation of the CPD portfolios. With future legislation this will be a necessity, therefore there must be an equitable access to time and facilities to prevent staff from some trusts being treated less favourably than others.

    Many members have been involved in the HPC consultation on CPD and welcome the implementation of compulsory CPD requirements. However, our members also express concern in relation to the ability to participate in activities in work-time. The promotion of the CPD framework to managers of physiotherapy services would assist in negotiations between members and their managers, particularly with regard to the problematic area of protected time for CPD activities.   London North Stewards / Association Of Chartered Physiotherapists in Women's Health

    The ERUS survey of the impact of cuts in funding NHS physiotherapy services has highlighted that training budgets and support for members to undertake CPD and development activities have been severely cut. ERUS with L&D will explore some models of good practice in staff development, highlighting appropriate use of the KSF. The CPD unit has undertaken a CPD survey of 5% of the membership which provides some data on how much time and funding is given for CPD in the NHS and the independent and private sectors. The aim of the joint work of ERUS and the CPD unit will be to:

    • Produce practical guidance on negotiating CPD time and study leave and models of good practice for stewards and managers.
    • To recommend to managers a target of half a day per month per individual for CPD, in addition to statutory training, as specified in CSP CPD policy statements (2003, 2006).
    • To provide information to support national negotiations for managers and stewards on career development and progression and support for development and use of the KSF.
    • Introduce training to assist stewards to negotiate on training and development issues.
    Membership involvement will be through appropriate standing committees and close liaison with ACPM and the National Group of Regional Stewards.

     

  2. Conference recognises that with the National Framework for Support Workers Education and Development now in place, supported by the Knowledge and Skills Framework providing the underpinning competency on which pay and career progression is based, the CSP should be supporting and encouraging Managers to recognise the potential of Assistants of all grades to acquire advanced practice skills which will improve services provided to all patients within the NHS. Conference therefore calls on the CSP to:

    1. provide Managers with the information and encouragement they need to provide education and training to assistants on an equitable basis
    2. raise awareness of relevant funding streams
    3. raise the profile of assistants to managers and the profession, through appropriate networks and publications, so that all members are aware of the potential assistants have to offer patients and services if given the training opportunities necessary
    4. provide tools to managers to enable them to use the KSF to ensure assistants have an achievable career pathway.
    Assistants are often overlooked when money and support for education and training is being considered. It is essential that Assistants have equal opportunities for career progression and be enabled to meet the competencies required for them to climb the skills escalator.  Physiotherapy Assistants Board

     

    A 2005 consultation exercise on the National Framework for Support Worker Education and Development demonstrated that the framework has been well received and is fulfilling its intended purpose. Responses also show that this framework works well as a combined project with the College of Occupational Therapists and respondents identified that further joint working would be welcomed.

    The questionnaire was sent out to 350 CSP members who had requested the framework between January and June 2005. The consultation was also highlighted on the website. Some changes will be made in light of these comments. A number of respondents also gave further ideas regarding the promotion of the framework and these will be followed up. As the KSF work rolls out the links with the framework can be used by assistants and others to promote the need for a sound educational basis for the work of assistants at all levels. The Society will continue to raise the issue of training for assistants with managers and other appropriate groups and will assist associate members to access education and training opportunities.

  3. This Conference requests the CSP to investigate the possibility of the full student loan being made available to students with no external means of support. At present any student receiving an NHS bursary is only entitled to £2,005, roughly half of the available student loan. Many students feel the need to get a job at university to support them. For physiotherapy students this can be difficult due to the pressures of long hours of study and placements. This can lead to financial problems and result in students having to drop off the course unnecessarily.  Student Executive Committee

    The Students Officer is aware of these issues and continues to work for the benefit of students. The CSP Students' Officer wrote a letter to the Student Loan Company asking them for their reasons as to why the decision was made that health students cannot apply for the full loan. He has also asked for further details as to who can be contacted to see if pressure can be exerted from the student voice in order to remedy the situation for future intakes. Little information has been forthcoming except that the access of many physiotherapy students to full NHS bursaries means that access to full loans is restricted.

    In the meantime however, the Students' Officer has publicised details in the Student Handbook and Newsletter (Oct 2005) concerning how all students can apply for emergency funding (Access Funds and Hardship Loans) from their university which may be able to make up some of the shortfall.

Common debate: Motions 31 and 32

  1. This Conference calls upon the CSP to launch a campaign to increase the number of placements offered by physiotherapy departments, in both the acute and community settings, by highlighting the benefits students can have on physiotherapy departments.

    As the number of physiotherapy students rises each year, so too does the demand for placements. There are many departments that do not offer placements for many reasons but who may consider it if they were made aware of the need and benefits of offering placements to students. Such benefits include aiding therapists’ CPD and improving recruitment to their department.  Student Executive Committee

    The CSP is very aware of the continuing need to increase the number of clinical placements and to enhance their quality for students and this has been a key feature of the Learning and Development Function's business plan for many years. Through the clinical education co-ordinators network group the CSP will continue to support the work being undertaken by regional groups of universities to increase the number and variety of placements that can be offered to students. In addition, it will continue to support the dissemination of the ACE (Accreditation of Clinical Educators) scheme amongst existing and new clinical educators through Frontline, Congress, Managers News and any other appropriate medium.

  2. Conference requests that CSP work with Higher Educational Institutes and the Department of Health to ensure that it becomes mandatory for all areas employing physiotherapists to take students on a pro rata basis for their establishment.

    Should work places take a number of students proportional to the number of qualified staff it employs, then this would ensure equitable distribution of students across all work places. This is particularly in the light of the pressure for increasing the number of student clinical placements in the workplace at those Trusts agreeing to student placements, and the problems of recruiting newly qualified graduates into less traditional work areas.   ACPM Motion Failed.
Back to top

Emergency motions

  1. Conference welcomes the Government's recent announcement of a new approach to public sector pensions. In particular, we welcome the commitment that al changes, including any proposed increase in normal pension age, will be subject to negotiation with the NHS trade unions. Conference calls on the CSP to:

    • take all possible steps to ensure that these negotiations are meaningful and take place without delay;
    • work closely with the TUC and other public sector unions to ensure that our pensions both reward staff for their service to the NHS and allow them to retire at an appropriate time considering the manual nature of our work.
    National Group Of Regional Stewards

     

    Following the Government's announcement of the new approach referred to in the motion, it was agreed that there would be a series of meetings through special sessions of the Public Services Forum (chaired by Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry). The CSP has a seat on the TUC Public Services Liaison Group, which agreed a set of public service principles for discussion at the PSF.

    A major breakthrough came when, through the auspices of the TUC, national framework principles for scheme negotiations were agreed in October 2005. (Which applies to the NHS, Teachers and the Civil Service.)

    Please see the response to Resolution 18 for details of the CSP success in negotiating a new agreement to retain the 60-retirement age of existing staff and the final salary pension scheme for all. Strong partnership working with other unions at the TUC has been important to this achievement.

  2. This morning Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Health announced that £3 billion is to be made available to Independent Treatment Centres to treat NHS patients to reduce waiting lists. Conference calls on Council to lobby the Government to ensure that:

    • the money does not come from existing NHS budgets, and
    • the cost of treatment includes all costs including rehabilitation.
    National Group Of Regional Stewards

     

    Council made a position statement regarding ITCs at their inception. This statement stressed that while supporting any initiative to provide timely, appropriate care for patients it was important that this care did not come at the expense of the NHS in respect of staffing or ongoing rehabilitation. The position still applies. It is understood that the extra £3 billion is in addition to NHS funding.

    It is also important that any treatment costs include that for rehabilitation and is part of a package of care. The Society has specifically lobbied the Department of Health, through the national reference cost collection team and through the healthcare resource expert working groups (approximately 22 AHPs are members of these groups) on the issue of rehabilitation. There are currently two physiotherapy consultants who sit on the rehabilitation HRG working group. The Society will continue to lobby on all these issues and is currently collecting new information from members via the steward's network to understand further the impact of ITCs locally.

    In July 2006, the House of Commons Select Committee on Health issued a report on ITC's, which raised some matters of concern. The CSP submitted evidence to this review.

Sarah Bazin
Chair of CSP Council
2006

This text on this page was last updated on 29 Nov 2006.